These Headlines would be even worse.
Temps Plunge to Record as Cold Snap Freezes North, East States...
CHILL MAP...
Vermont sets 'all-time record for one snowstorm'...
Iowa temps 'a solid 30 degrees below normal'...
Power outage halts flights at Washington Reagan National Airport...
Seoul buried in heaviest snowfall in 70 years...
Peru's mountain people 'face extinction because of cold conditions'...
Beijing -- coldest in 40 years...
World copes with Arctic weather...
What is it about global warming that you just don't get?
ReplyDelete"A big reason we know that we're experiencing record colds is because of historical temperature data. The same data that skeptics keep claiming is flawed or forged. The same data showing a clear upward trend in average temperatures over the past 100 years. All of the sudden, that data's become mysteriously reliable..."
I agree with the data. Temps go up, Temps go down. There have been ice ages in the past and great floods. All long before man ever came along. Long before we started using oil. Way before the first SUV.
ReplyDeleteWhen the chief mouthpiece for Global warming says stuff like this...
http://yankeephil.blogspot.com/2009/11/can-we-finally-tell-al-gore-to-shut-up.html
Or if they thought it was real....
http://yankeephil.blogspot.com/2009/12/if-global-warming-was-real.html
Or if they were using quality data....
http://yankeephil.blogspot.com/2009/12/climate-change-data-wouldnt-pass-muster.html
or if there wasn't this scandal....
http://yankeephil.blogspot.com/2009/11/climate-change-this-is-worst-scientific.html
Or if the chief hack for Al Gore didn't Flip Flop like this....
http://yankeephil.blogspot.com/2009/10/ice-age-to-global-warming-flip-flop-by.html
and Greenpeace admits to lying....
http://yankeephil.blogspot.com/2009/08/bbc-gets-greenpeace-to-admit-that-it.html
So, which one is it?
ReplyDeleteDo you deny that global warming is happening? Or do you just deny that it's man-made?
I agree that the temps fluctuate.They were going up in 80's,90's. They had been going down in 60's,70's. They are going down again. Take a look out your window. Are you going to believe your own eyes or the people who have admitted lying to you? Are you going to listen to a person who clearly are making $$$ on carbon credits, yet owns a 100 ft yacht? Did you go to any of those links above?
ReplyDeleteDude, Look here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/maxmin.jsp#
"This graphic shows the ratio of record daily highs to record daily lows observed at about 1,800 weather stations in the 48 contiguous United States from January 1950 through September 2009. Each bar shows the proportion of record highs (red) to record lows (blue) for each decade. The 1960s and 1970s saw slightly more record daily lows than highs, but in the last 30 years record highs have increasingly predominated, with the ratio now about two-to-one for the 48 states as a whole. "
The point is long-term higher temps can include spikes of cold. And clearly the data show a long-term warming, despite it being cold today.
Secondly, accepting data as evidence that warming is real, then at some level, who cares if it's man-made or not!? The consequences are going to be the same.
I remember showing a film in an ecology class in HS. It was made in 1990. It was warning about Global Warming. It was saying that in 15-20 years, the the Florida Everglades would be covered by the Atlantic. The water hasn't even got close to the bars on South Beach in Miami.
ReplyDeleteTell me where Iam wrong in each link above.
Most of these links seem to obsess about Al Gore. Slamming Gore, or anyone, for saying something stupid, wrong, or hypocritical is not a closed case on anything. It does not prove or disprove a cause they may champion.
ReplyDeleteDo you hold yourself to the same high standard of being either purely virtuous, or purely evil, without compromise? I would like to meet you, if that's indeed your position. After all, you claim to be "THE VOICE OF REASON."
The idea of scandalous e-mails that somehow expose a grand conspiracy has been debunked.
"I'll let the Real Climate collective sum up the situation
More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to 'get rid of the MWP', no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.
Instead, there is a peek into how scientists actually interact and the conflicts show that the community is a far cry from the monolith that is sometimes imagined. People working constructively to improve joint publications; scientists who are friendly and agree on many of the big picture issues, disagreeing at times about details and engaging in 'robust' discussions; Scientists expressing frustration at the misrepresentation of their work in politicized arenas and complaining when media reports get it wrong; Scientists resenting the time they have to take out of their research to deal with over-hyped nonsense. None of this should be shocking."
Shall I take a selection of your words and posts out of context to prove it, or will you accept the point and move on?
How would you react if on every record-breaking hot day, bloggers attacked it as evidence that global cooling were real? It would be pretty bogus, eh?
Just answer me this: What's the threat you perceive in accepting that global warming is real? Take politics out of the equation (if that's at all possible for you). How much science do you believe in? Just so I can gauge where you are on the science scale...are you one that views the bible as literally true (Noah's ark, 6,000 year old Earth, creationist).
I'm attempting to take you at your word that you are "A Voice of reason." And if so, then what's so unreasonable about accepting scientific data that shows , and predicts continued warming?
Thanks in advance for your time and consideration.
No response?
ReplyDeleteShall I rescind my thanks?
I didn't have time for a reply previously.Sorry
ReplyDeleteI have a problem accepting "consensus" on an idea that has not been proven and acting on it. There have been times in the past that scientists have had consensus on many issues that turned out to be false. Flat earth, sun revolving around earth,coming ice-age, etc...
I have a problem with huge changes based upon a theory. It was only 3 decades ago that scientists, media, etc, were calling for people to respond to Global cooling.
Copenhagen showed that a lot of the world does not believe in the problem of "Global Warming". They believe in getting $$$. Mugabe, as well as many others, had their hands out for dollars.
Here is Accuweather chief http://yankeephil.blogspot.com/2009/12/ice-age-coming-as-per-accuweather.html having different view.
How about this call from 1922??
http://yankeephil.blogspot.com/2010/01/real-revo-has-some-great-r-on-artic-ice.html
So what is so unreasonable about accepting scientific data? Well do we accept 1922 Warming?
1970's coming Ice age?
1990's Global Warming?
2009 Coming Ice Age?
Here is a piece by Paul Ehrlich from the "Population Bomb"
The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970's the world will undergo famines--hundreds
of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon
now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate, although
many lives could be saved through dramatic programs to "stretch" the carrying capacity of the earth
by increasing food production. But these programs will only provide a stay of execution unless they
are accompanied by determined and successful efforts at population control. Population control is
the conscious regulation of the numbers of human beings to meet the needs, not just of individual
families, but of society as a whole.
Nothing could be more misleading to our children than our present affluent society. They will
inherit a totally different world, a world in which the standards, politics, and economics of the
1960's are dead. As the most powerful nation in the world today, and its largest consumer, the
United States cannot stand isolated. We are today involved in the events leading to famine;
tomorrow we may be destroyed by its consequences.
Our position requires that we take immediate action at home and promote effective action
worldwide. We must have population control at home, hopefully through a system of incentives and
penalties, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail. We must use our political power to push
other countries into programs which combine agricultural development and population control. And
while this is being done we must take action to reverse the deterioration of our environment before
population pressure permanently ruins our planet. The birth rate must be brought into balance with
the death rate or mankind will breed itself into oblivion. We can no longer afford merely to treat
the symptoms of the cancer of population growth; the cancer itself must be cut out. Population
control is the only answer.
Did we run out of food and resources 40 years ago?
Making decisions based on "Science" must be made very carefully. It is not unreasonable to accept data, but the question we must consider is if the conclusions are correct.
Another thing to consider is whether Global Warming would be all bad. It is an ill wind that doesn't blow some good. How would Greenland like to be Green again? Farming in Northern Canada. Schools of fish migrating further North?